India were 32/5 when Dhoni came in. And his 9 was the equal second-highest score.

And I don't remember that Ind/WI game very well, but it wouldn't surprise me if top-order wickets fell then also. I do remember Zaheer/Sharma bowling pus though, a much more likely source of costing India the game.

Yeah I've heard all these excuses before, last time it was the umpires.

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?

Posts

37,157

Jono, as poor as Streetwise's posting is, and tbf, it is poor... to say that 'Fact: Dhoni is 50 times the T20 batsman than Michael Clarke' is pretty much on par for poorness.

Clarke, imo, still has a role to play in t20. There's still a place for classical stroke play, so to speak, in t20, not just the slap and hope players.

At the moment, I don't think coming in at number three when the team has got off to a flying start is his best position, but who would you rather have in the Australian line up (from and Australian point of view) to be batting when they're 4/20 on a poor West Indian pitch trying to get the team to 120? I know I'd feel safer with Clarke there than almost anyone else.

Jono, as poor as Streetwise's posting is, and tbf, it is poor... to say that 'Fact: Dhoni is 50 times the T20 batsman than Michael Clarke' is pretty much on par for poorness.

Clarke, imo, still has a role to play in t20. There's still a place for classical stroke play, so to speak, in t20, not just the slap and hope players.

At the moment, I don't think coming in at number three when the team has got off to a flying start is his best position, but who would you rather have in the Australian line up (from and Australian point of view) to be batting when they're 4/20 on a poor West Indian pitch trying to get the team to 120? I know I'd feel safer with Clarke there than almost anyone else.

Jono, as poor as Streetwise's posting is, and tbf, it is poor... to say that 'Fact: Dhoni is 50 times the T20 batsman than Michael Clarke' is pretty much on par for poorness.

Clarke, imo, still has a role to play in t20. There's still a place for classical stroke play, so to speak, in t20, not just the slap and hope players.

At the moment, I don't think coming in at number three when the team has got off to a flying start is his best position, but who would you rather have in the Australian line up (from and Australian point of view) to be batting when they're 4/20 on a poor West Indian pitch trying to get the team to 120? I know I'd feel safer with Clarke there than almost anyone else.

He should be playing a floating role and play it by ear I think.

Could this post be the final straw on the camels back? Can only see Clarke being dropped after Murphy's sign of approval.

Jono, as poor as Streetwise's posting is, and tbf, it is poor... to say that 'Fact: Dhoni is 50 times the T20 batsman than Michael Clarke' is pretty much on par for poorness.

Clarke, imo, still has a role to play in t20. There's still a place for classical stroke play, so to speak, in t20, not just the slap and hope players.

At the moment, I don't think coming in at number three when the team has got off to a flying start is his best position, but who would you rather have in the Australian line up (from and Australian point of view) to be batting when they're 4/20 on a poor West Indian pitch trying to get the team to 120? I know I'd feel safer with Clarke there than almost anyone else.